With all the other bad movies that have come out it seems you're being awfully hard on this one. Yes its not original (Wah), but Rodriquez and Nimrod did something in Hollywood that's almost as rare: They created a sequel to one of the best cult action movies of all time, and they showed enormous respect to the source material (Take note Michael Bay). And in a time when most directors and studios give the middle finger to the fans, these guys actually make a movie that doesn't sh*t on them or "rape their childhood." That should be commended -- we should be demanding that more directors do this! Maybe that's just me though.

It sounds like you're a little bitter about this, it's almost like you're saying "Oh my god RT isn't giving me the results i want, I'll just go over to metacritic they wont let me down."

Now I cant speak for everyone, but here's the reason I don't use MetaCritic as a more trustful movie review site: It's the numbers. On RT, Predators is at 63 with 117 reviews, meanwhile on MetaCritic it's at 50, but with only 28 reviews,all of which come from major publications. On a personal level, while I do read those reviews and take them into account when i see a movie, I actually prefer hearing the viewpoints of smaller publications. I'd rather have a consensus from a lot of different people from various backgrounds than a very small sample.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I don't think I'm "bitter," as I said in my earlier response, I am curious why most of our members seem to look only at RT for critical consensus. It is also interesting that, as time has passed, the numbers at the two sites seem to be converging -- Suggesting that PREDATORS may indeed not be a RAZZIE® contender, but may also not be worth paying current movie admission prices to see -- The equivalent of the "Rent It" rating on At The Movies...

I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin

Are you kidding, HeadRAZZberry? On the Eclipse board, you said to use RT instead of Metacritic, in which the film has a higher score. Now that it's opposite for this film, you're wanting to use Metacritic and not RT. Now I'm confused what site we're supposed to use??

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am not "suggesting" either site be used exclusively. I started offering ratings from both for perusal to give some balance in determining critical consensus because I noticed about 6 months ago that RT tended, in general, to have more negative numbers than MetaCritic. While that would seem to be of interest for our purposes, I didn't think either site alone offered a clear indicator of how critics in general rated movies. It was also significant, when I researched MetaCritic before I started adding it to our Reviews Lynx, that they claimed to get their numbers from the critics themselves, rather than merely characterizing what the reviews said, as RT does. Also, as Head RAZZberry, I probably read more full reviews than just about anyone, and in doing so, I noticed that RT often ascribed a "Rotten" icon to what was actually a middling review.

In this particular case, when I posted my response about the difference between the two sites' ratings of PREDATORS, I was merely pointing out that the dichotomy in this instance was greater than usual.

Thank you, Mayhem5185. Yours is the most sensible post I've read in a loooooong time (well, since the post about illegally downloading movies).

Originally posted by Mayhem5185

It sounds like your a little bitter about this, it's almost like your saying "Oh my god RT isn't giving me the results i want, I'll just go over to metacritic they wont let me down.

Now I cant speak for everyone but here's the reason i don't use metacritic as a more trustful movie review site, it's the numbers. On RT Predators is at 63 with 117 reviews, meanwhile on Metacritic it's at50 with only 28 reviews,all of which come from major publications. On a personal level, while i do read those reviews and take them into account when i see a movie, i actually prefer hearing the viewpoints from the smaller publications. I'd rather have a consensus from a lot of different people from various backgrounds then a very small amount.

With all the other bad movies that have come out it seems your being awfully hard on this one. Yes its not original (Wah), but Rodriquez and Nimrod did something in Hollywood that's almost as rare, They created a sequel to one of the best cult action movies of all time, and they showed enormous respect to the source material (Take note Michael Bay). And in a time when most directors and studios give the middle finger to the fans, these guys actually make a movie that doesn't sh*t on them or "rape their childhood", that should be commended, we should be demanding that more directors do this, that's just me though.

You should watch Maury.

Originally posted by Mayhem5185

And on a side note this new feud between Gee-wiz and Burn is actually pretty funny, this is a whole lot better than Burn/Miguel battles. Lets keep this up, i love this stuff.

I will attempt to piece together a Forum for "Love Ranch", partly for the reason that I do believe we should include Helen Mirren's worst picture in our calculations for this year, but mostly just to see how well I can do it.

Originally posted by cvcjr13

I'm amazed by this film's reviews, too. I would have thought sticking Adrian Brody in the umpteenth film about Predators was a perfect recipe for Razzie purée. Currently, there's 72 reviews, 70% of them being fresh and 50% of the top critics rating it fresh. Completely unexpected!

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am curious why everyone is referring to this film's RT Numbers, and not bothering to check its rating at the other review site we link to, MetaCritic -- Whose numbers I actually find more credible than those at RT. While PREDATORS is hardly in the same range at MetaCritic as, say, LAST AIRBENDER, it's current MetaCritic rating is a fair-to-middling 50% Approval (LINK). And I notice that score does not include the negative review PREDATORS got in this morning's L.A. Times (LINK). So it may not be a contender come January, but it is still indicative of Hollywood's current malaise when it comes to doing anything truly original any more...

Since Predators apparently isn't bad enough, can we have a forum for last week's Love Ranch instead (RT rating 14%/10%)?

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: The reviews on LOVE RANCH have been surprisingly negative, especially for something co-starring two respected Oscar® winners. But our Forum tends to focus on films audiences across the country have the opportunity to see, and LOVE RANCH, while it technically qualifies for our consideration, seems unlikely to ever play on more than maybe 3 dozen screens before it goes to DVD. If you feel strongly about it, cvcjr13, you are certainly free to start a Forum about it yourself...

I gave it a try. You can view it here. I'll be tweaking it every now and then. Sadly, it lacks that P.T. Barnum / advertising delivery gloved in gleeful satire that HeadRAZZ has perfected over the years.

MWG: When a large amount of critics are ripping a movie to shreds, chances are it's because the movie is bad. Granted, the critics didn't really do that with this movie, but they do with almost all other movies on this forum. You come across as someone who so desperately wants every movie to be good and be successful that you will lower your standards and say its good, just to have the opposite opinion of most critics and most of the rest of us here on this Forum.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Mayhem5185: I, too, have heard good things about this movie from those who saw it. I'm not going to hold the movie in high regard compared to the first Predator movie until I see it for myself. Besides, 64% is like a "D" average.

But your statement proves once and for all that sequels and remakes can be good IF there's a talented writer/producer/director with creative vision behind it like Rodriquez, who will do his best with the project, instead of a talentless hack like Bay, who just throws a piece of s*** together over a weekend and calls it a movie.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Well, I had a free movie pass and I gave the movie a try. Sure enough, yet another worthless remake that adds NOTHING to the series. No, it doesn't pay "homage" to the first movie, it copies and pastes everywhere ... the being covered in mud, the lines like "What the hell are you" and "I'm right here, come kill me", etc. Not to mention the first movie had a rag-tag team of big, strong, well-armed marines that could be a match for the Predators ... here, we have a team of skinny, little twigs as opponents! I say "guilty pleasure" at best ... with way more "guilt" than pleasure to it!

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

It's fairly obvious that certain people have a clear agenda on this board. When a film like this both performs at the box office and critically, certain posters right it off as saying, "well, the film is OKAY for what it is"....A sort of backhanded compliment, if even that. It's fairly funny that aside from the blatantly obvious awful films, the resident "experts" on this board have been a bit off with their predictions.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou can vote in polls in this forum